# EUR-Lex - 52013PC0201 - EN

*|*

# 52013PC0201

**Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia /* COM/2013/0201 final - 2013/0108 (NLE) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1) Context of the proposal

110 || · Grounds for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community[1] ('the basic Regulation') in the proceeding concerning imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China, Thailand and Indonesia.

120 || · General context This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and is the result of an investigation that was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation.

139 || · Existing provisions in the area of the proposal By Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand.

141 || · Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union Not applicable.

2) Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment

|| · Consultation of interested parties

219 || Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.

|| · Collection and use of expertise

229 || There was no need for external expertise.

230 || · Impact assessment This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. The basic Regulation does not provide for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed.

3) Legal elements of the proposal

305 || · Summary of the proposed action On 16 February 2012, the Commission announced by a notice (‘notice of initiation’), published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China, Thailand and Indonesia. The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 3 January 2012 by the Defence Committee of Tube or Pipe Cast Fittings, of Malleable Cast Iron of the European Union (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 50 % of the total Union production of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron containing evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom. On 15 November 2012, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012, a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand ran ging from 15,9 % to 67,8 %. No provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron originating in Indonesia. The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings which have confirmed the existence of dumping causing injury, and the fact that the imposition of measures is not against the Union interest. The provisional findings were in general confirmed, but the product scope has been narrowed and changes to the calculation of dumping and injury margins have resulted in a reduction of the duty levels that now range from 14,9 % to 57,8 %. It is proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 15 May 2013 at the latest.

310 || · Legal basis Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

329 || · Subsidiarity principle The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.

|| · Proportionality principle The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons:

331 || The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision.

332 || Indication of how financial and administrative burden falling upon the Union, national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable.

|| · Choice of instruments

341 || Proposed instruments: regulation.

342 || Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: The above-mentioned basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options.

4) Budgetary implication

409 || The proposal has no implication for the Union budget.

2013/0108 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded
tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's
Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community[2]
('the basic Regulation'), and in particular Article 9
thereof,

Having regard to the
proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the
Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A.        PROCEDURE

1.           Provisional measures

(1)       On 15 November 2012, the
European Commission ('the Commission'), by Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012[3] (‘the provisional Regulation’)
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe
cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of
China (‘the PRC’) and Thailand.

(2)       The
proceeding was initiated by a notice of initiation[4]
published on 16 February 2012, following a complaint
lodged on 3 January 2012 by the Defence Committee of Tube or Pipe Cast
Fittings, of Malleable Cast Iron of the European Union (‘the complainant’) on
behalf of producers representing more than 50 % of the total Union production
of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron ('threaded
malleable fittings').

(3)       As set out in recital (15)
to the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered
the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 (‘investigation period’ or
‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered
the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).

2.           Subsequent procedure

(4)       Subsequent to the
disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it
was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures ('provisional
disclosure'), several interested parties made written submissions making their
views on the provisional findings known. The parties who so requested were also
granted the opportunity to be heard.

(5)       The
Commission continued to seek and analyse all the information it deemed
necessary for its definitive findings.

B.         PRODUCT CONCERNED AND
LIKE PRODUCT

(6)       One interested party
claimed that the product they import should not be part of the product
concerned, since its product had certain technical peculiarities. These
malleable fittings use tapered threads, contrary to the parallel threads of the
other imported malleable fittings.

(7)       However, the investigation
has shown that, apart from these technical specifications, these malleable
fittings have the same physical and technical characteristics of the other
imported malleable fittings. Furthermore, as concerns the use, the
investigation has shown that the taper threaded fittings are used in a similar
way to the other imported malleable fittings. Indeed, in one Member State where both types are used, they have been found to be interchangeable. The claim was
therefore rejected

(8)       One
interested party claimed that white-heart malleable threaded fittings can be
sold throughout the Union, while black-heart malleable threaded fittings can
only be sold in the UK, the
 Republic of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus. Therefore, black-heart and white-heart
malleable threaded fittings do allegedly not compete fully on the Union market.

(9)       However, the investigation
has shown that the majority of imports of black-heart malleable threaded
fittings originating in the countries concerned go to continental European
countries such as Germany, Italy, Poland or Spain. It is therefore concluded
that black-heart and white heart malleable threaded fittings fully compete on
the Union market, and not only in a limited number of Member States.

(10)     An importer reiterated its
claim that bodies of compression fittings should not fall
under the definition of the product concerned. That
importer argued that bodies of compression fittings have different use and
provided supporting evidence that the thread on the body of compression
fittings can be easily distinguished from the thread on a standard fitting,
because it is done according to a different ISO standard[5]. After
considering the evidence that was submitted, it was concluded that the product
scope should be limited accordingly.

(11)     Two
other interested parties argued for exclusion from the product scope of malleable
iron electrical conduit fittings and, in particular, malleable iron threaded
circular junction boxes that are a key component of all electrical conduit tube
and conduit fittings installations. They claimed that such junction boxes serve
different purposes (i.e. containment and protection of electrical wiring
systems as opposite to ensuring leak-less flow of gas or water as in the case
of standard fittings investigated in this proceeding). They are also easily
distinguishable from other fittings (rather than having to be absolutely gas or
liquid tight they have light lids when assembled into a system after
importation to allow easy access to cables). After careful consideration of
those arguments, it was concluded that malleable iron threaded circular
junction boxes without having a lid should be excluded from the product scope.

(12)     In view of the above, it
was deemed appropriate to revise the product scope definition determined in the
provisional Regulation. Therefore, the product concerned is definitively
defined as threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of
malleable cast iron, currently falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10, excluding
bodies of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a
lid.

(13)     In the absence of any other
comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, the findings in
recitals (17) to (21) and (23) to (28) to the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

C.        SAMPLING

(14)     Following provisional
disclosure, no comments concerning sampling of Union producers, exporting
producers in the PRC and unrelated importers were received. Consequently, the
findings set out in recitals (29) to (31) to the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

D.     DUMPING

1.           People's
Republic of China

1.1.        Market economy treatment
and individual treatment

(15)     In the absence of any
comments concerning market economy treatment and individual treatment, the
provisional findings in recitals (32) to (46) to the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

1.2.        Analogue country

(16)     In the absence of any
comments concerning the analogue country, the findings in recitals (47) to (53)
to the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

1.3.        Normal value, export price,
comparison

(17)     One
Chinese exporting producer claimed that the normal value should be calculated on
the basis of the domestic sales by the sole cooperating analogue country
producer, even if they are not made in representative quantities as set out in
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The claim can be accepted in the case of
an analogue country. Accordingly, domestic sales in the ordinary course of
trade by the sole cooperating analogue country producer were used to establish the
normal value.

(18)     The
same Chinese exporting producer claimed that the dumping margin should be
established using all export sales, and not only for the product types directly
comparable with the types sold by the analogue country producer on its domestic
market. This claim was accepted. For these not directly comparable product
types, the normal value was based on the arithmetical average normal value for
the matching product types, adjusted by the market value of the differences in
the physical characteristics pursuant to Article 2(10)(a) of the basic
Regulation.

(19)     In the absence of any other
comments concerning the normal value, export price and comparison, the findings
in recitals (54), (59) to (61) and (64) to (67) to the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

1.4.        Dumping margins

(20)     For the sampled companies,
the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product established
for the analogue country was compared with the weighted average export price of
the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Articles
2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation.

(21)     On this basis the definitive
dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
unpaid, are as follows:

Company || Dumping Margin

Hebei Jianzhi || 57,8 %

Jinan Meide || 40,8 %

Qingdao Madison || 24,6 %

(22)     The weighted average
dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers not included in the
sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the
basic Regulation. Accordingly, this margin was established on the basis of the
margins established for the sampled exporting producers.

(23)     On this basis, the dumping
margin for the cooperating companies not included in the sample was established
at 41,1 %.

(24)     With regard to all other
exporting producers in the PRC, the dumping margins were established on the
basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic
Regulation. To this end the level of cooperation was first established by
comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported by the cooperating
exporting producers with the volume of Chinese exports, as established in
recital (51) below.

(25)     As the cooperation
accounted for more than 50 % of total Chinese exports to the Union and the
industry can be considered fragmented due to the high number of exporting
producers in the PRC, the level of cooperation can be considered high. Therefore,
the residual dumping margin was set at the level of the sampled company with
the highest dumping margin.

(26)     On this basis the
definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier
price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company || Dumping Margin

Hebei Jianzhi || 57,8 %

Jinan Meide || 40,8 %

Qingdao Madison || 24,6 %

Other cooperating companies || 41,1 %

All other companies || 57,8 %

2.           Indonesia

2.1.        Normal value, export price
and comparison

(27)     In the absence of any
comments concerning normal value, export price and comparison, the findings in
recitals (75) to (87) and (91) to the provisional Regulation with regard to
Indonesia are hereby confirmed.

2.2.        Dumping margins

(28)     Given that the level of
cooperation was considered high (the volume of exports of the sole cooperating
Indonesian company represented more than 80 % of total Indonesian exports to
the Union during the IP), the dumping margin for all other Indonesian exporting
producers was set at the same level as for the cooperating company.

(29)     On this basis the
definitive dumping margins for the Indonesian companies expressed as a
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company || Dumping Margin

PT. Tri Sinar Purnama || 11,0 %

All other companies || 11, 0%

3.           Thailand

3.1.        Normal value, export price
and comparison

(30)     No comments were received
that would lead to any change in the methodology applied or the actual dumping
calculation performed with regard to Thailand.

(31)     Consequently, the findings
in recitals (75) to (88) of the provisional Regulation concerning normal value,
export price and comparison with regard to Thailand are hereby confirmed.

3.2.        Dumping margins

(32)     A
review and fine-tuning of the dumping calculation resulted in a slightly lower
dumping margin of 15,5 % for one of the Thai exporting producers. The dumping
margin for the other cooperating exporting producer is definitively confirmed
at the provisional level.

(33)     Given that the level of
cooperation was considered high (the volume of exports of the two cooperating
Thai companies represented more than 80 % of total Thai exports to the Union during the IP), the dumping margin for all other Thai exporting producers was set at
the level of the highest dumping margin of the two cooperating companies.

(34)     On
this basis the definitive dumping margins for the Thai companies expressed as a
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company || Dumping Margin

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co., Ltd || 15,5 %

Siam Fittings Co., Ltd || 50,7 %

All other companies || 50,7 %

E.         INJURY

1.           Union production

(35)     In the absence of any
comments with regard to Union production, recital (94) to the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. It is added that during the period
considered the like product was manufactured by three more producers in the Union that ceased production between 2008 and 2009, and another producer which ceased
production around the end of the period considered.

2.           Definition
of the Union industry

(36)     Interested parties claimed
that both sampled groups of Union producers are importing the product
concerned, and should therefore pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) not be considered
part of the Union industry.

(37)     In
this respect, it was established that both sampled groups of Union producers do
indeed import the product concerned. However, first, it should be noted that
the finding that a Union producer is also an importer of the product concerned
does not lead automatically to the exclusion of this Union producer from the
Union industry, and second, for each of the Union producers, these imports were
minor compared to the total production and sales of the groups of companies. It
is therefore confirmed that both groups of companies are considered part of the
Union industry.

(38)     In addition, one interested
party claimed that one Union producer should not be considered part of the Union
industry, since the Union producer is allegedly related to an importer of the
product concerned. However, first, it should be noted that the finding of a
relation between a Union producer and an exporter does not lead automatically
to the exclusion of this Union producer from the Union industry, and second, no
evidence was provided that the relation between the Union producer and the
importer, if any, would meet the criteria of Article 4(2) of the basic
Regulation. Furthermore, the quantities imported by the allegedly related
importer are only a small fraction of the quantities produced and sold by the
allegedly related Union producer. Therefore, even if the Union producer and the
importer were found related, the Union producer would still be considered part
of the Union industry.

(39)     With regard to the
definition of the Union industry for the purposes of the injury assessment, all
Union producers manufacturing the like product during the period considered are
considered to constitute the Union industry and they will therefore be
hereafter referred to as the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article
4(1) of the basic Regulation.

3.           Union
consumption

(40)     One interested party
commented on the fact that during the whole period considered, the production
of the Union industry exceeds its sales. At the same time, a decrease in stocks
was reported, which is implausible as production exceeding sales should lead to
an increase in stocks.

(41)     It is noted in this respect that indeed, while at the
provisional stage production and stocks were found to have been reported
correctly, an error occurred in reporting the Union sales of the Union industry
and some sales volumes of the non-sampled Union producers were not completely
taken account of. This was corrected and as a consequence, the Union
consumption and market shares on the Union market also had to be revised
accordingly. Due to the shut-down of three Union
producers during the period considered mentioned in recital (113) to the
provisional Regulation, the revision with regard to the Union consumption has a
more significant impact at the beginning of the period considered.

(42)     Union
consumption significantly decreased by 28 % between 2008 and 2009, subsequently
increasing by 7 percentage points to a level of 21 % below the consumption at
the beginning of the period considered.

Union consumption (tonnes)

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Union consumption || 84 270 || 60 807 || 60 640 || 66 493

Index || 100 || 72 || 72 || 79

Source: Complaint data, Eurostat and questionnaire replies

4.           Imports
from the countries concerned

4.1.        Cumulative
assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

(43)     With regard to the volumes of the dumped imports from Indonesia, it is definitively confirmed that they constituted only around 2,5 % of all imports of
the like product to the Union during the IP. Therefore, they can be considered
as not constituting a cause of material injury to the Union industry in the
sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation or the provisions of the WTO
Anti-Dumping Agreement.

(44)     In
the light of the above, it is definitively decided not to cumulate those
imports with the dumped imports from the PRC and Thailand.

(45)     Regarding the cumulative
assessment of imports from the PRC and Thailand for the purpose of the injury
and causation analysis, interested parties claimed that Thai imports should not
be cumulatively assessed with Chinese imports for a number of reasons.

(46)     Firstly, it was argued that
the sales quantity of Thai imports is much lower than that of Chinese imports,
and that the sales quantity of Thai imports is decreasing in absolute terms.
However, the quantity of Thai imports is not negligible, and therefore
sufficient to allow cumulation. In addition, even though the Thai imports are
decreasing in absolute terms as demonstrated in the table in recital (51) below,
they were gaining 19 % of market share during the period considered, as demonstrated
in the table in recital (51) below.

(47)     In terms of prices, it was
argued that Thai imports are sold, on average, at higher prices than Chinese
imports. While this is correct, Thai imports are nevertheless significantly
undercutting Union industry prices. Furthermore, the price difference between
Thai imports and Chinese imports was constantly decreasing during the period
considered from 698 EUR/tonne in 2008 to 472 EUR/tonne during the IP, as shown
in the table of recital (108) to the provisional Regulation.

(48)     In the absence of any other
claim or comments, the content of recitals (98) to (105) to the provisional
Regulation is hereby confirmed.

4.2.        Volume,
market share of the dumped imports concerned, their import prices and
undercutting

(49)     Some interested parties
claimed that the import volumes for the PRC stated in recital (106) of the
provisional Regulation are too high, as the relevant CN code includes all types
of malleable cast iron fittings, not only threaded fittings.

(50)     In this respect, it is
noted that not the full quantities reported in the CN code were presumed to be
threaded fittings. The volumes reported in the provisional Regulation were already
corrected downwards, based on information provided by national customs
authorities. These volumes were in line with the information contained in the
complaint. Interested parties had sufficient time to comment on this. However,
no information in this regard was submitted by any interested party either
before the publication of the provisional Regulation, nor within the time limit
granted for submitting comments to the provisional Regulation. The Chinese
Chamber of Commerce provided some quantified information concerning the
allegedly correct level of Chinese imports very late in the procedure, almost
two months after the deadline for submitting comments to the provisional
Regulation, which means it was provided only almost one year after the
initiation of the investigation, when the import figures were disclosed for the
first time in the non-limited version of the complaint. The submission of this
information outside the deadline does not allow for its verification through an
objective process of examination without unduly extending the period of the
investigation beyond the overriding 15-month deadline as laid down in Article
6(9) of the basic Regulation. In any case, this information appears to
substantially understate the Chinese import quantities, since it is based on
estimates concerning exports of cooperating companies only and could not therefore
be regarded as accurate. This claim therefore was rejected.

(51)     However,
a number of importers provided information concerning their imports of products
other than the product concerned imported under the same CN code during the
period considered. This information could be taken into account, and the import
volumes from the countries concerned were revised downwards accordingly.

Union import volume (tonnes)

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

PRC || 24 180 || 20 876 || 20 416 || 28 894

Index || 100 || 86 || 84 || 119

Thailand || 3 723 || 2 681 || 3 331 || 3 485

Index || 100 || 72 || 89 || 94

Two countries concerned || 27 903 || 23 558 || 23 747 || 32 379

Index || 100 || 84 || 85 || 116

Source: Complaint data, Eurostat and questionnaire replies

(52)     As
a consequence of the issue concerning the Union sales of the Union industry
mentioned in recital (41) above, the market share of the dumped imports from
the two countries concerned had to be revised as well. The market share of dumped imports from
the two countries concerned has increased by 15,6 percentage points from
33,1 % to 48,7 % during the period considered. This market share growth took
place to a large extent between 2010 and the IP, during a period of recovering
demand.

Union market share

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

PRC || 28,7 % || 34,3 % || 33,7 % || 43,5 %

Index || 100 || 120 || 117 || 151

Thailand || 4,4 % || 4,4 % || 5,5 % || 5,2 %

Index || 100 || 100 || 124 || 119

Two countries concerned || 33,1 % || 38,7 % || 39,2 % || 48,7 %

Index || 100 || 117 || 118 || 147

Source: Complaint data, Eurostat and questionnaire replies

(53)     One interested party
requested the aggregated sales price information by product type for the Union
industry should be disclosed. However, since the sample of Union producers was
comprised of only two groups of producers, as indicated in recital (111) of the
provisional Regulation, for confidentiality reasons the actual aggregated
information could not be disclosed. This reason also applies to the disclosure
of the aggregated sales price by product type.

(54)     Interested
parties claimed that the imports from the countries concerned enter the Union at a different level of trade than the goods
sold by the Union producers. Indeed, it was confirmed that this is the case,
and the Union industry and the importers typically share a substantial number
of customers. The claim could therefore be accepted and an allowance in the
form of an adjustment for level of trade was applied.

(55)     As
a result the undercutting margins given in recital (110) to the provisional
Regulation were revised downwards. Nevertheless, the undercutting margins found
typically remain substantial at 25 % to 45 %, with the sole exception of one
Thai exporter where the undercutting margin found was around 10 %.

(56)     In the absence of any other
claim or comments, the content of recitals (108) to (109) to the provisional
Regulation is hereby confirmed.

5.           Situation
of the Union industry

(57)     In the absence of any claim
or comments, recital (111) to the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

5.1.        Production,
production capacity and capacity utilisation

(58)     In the absence of any
comments with regard to production, production capacity and capacity
utilisation, recitals (112) to (114) to the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

5.2.        Stocks

(59)     In the absence of any
comments with regard to stocks, recital (115) to the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.

5.3.        Sales
volume and market share

(60)     As
a consequence of the issue mentioned in recital (41) above, the sales volume
and market share of the Union industry had to be revised as well. The sales
volume of all Union producers on the Union market significantly decreased by 36
% between 2008 and 2009 due to a decreasing demand. After 2009, however, the
demand in the Union increased by around 6 000 tonnes, as mentioned in
recital (42) above, but the Union sales further decreased by another 5 percentage
points or 2 440 tonnes until the end of the period considered.

Union sales volume (tonnes)

All producers || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Union sales || 48 823 || 31 069 || 30 466 || 28 629

Index || 100 || 64 || 62 || 59

Source: Questionnaire replies sampled Union producers, complaint

(61)     The market share of the
Union industry continuously decreased by 26 % or 14,8 percentage
points during the period considered, while the dumped imports gained
15,6 percentage points of market share during the same period, as
indicated in recital (52) above.

Union market share

All producers || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Market share || 57,9 % || 51,1 % || 50,2 % || 43,1 %

Index || 100 || 88 || 87 || 74

Source: Complaint data, Eurostat and questionnaire replies

(62)     One interested party
claimed that the market shares in the non-domestic market segment in the United Kingdom would show different market shares, with the Union industry holding a larger
market share, while the market share of Chinese imports would be smaller on
this particular segment of the Union market.

(63)     It may very well be the
case that the Union industry holds a higher market share in a particular market
segment in a single Member State. It is indeed normal that the various economic
operators do not have the same market shares in all market segments of all
Member States. However, the present injury analysis covers the Union market as
a whole. In this respect, it was indeed confirmed that the market share of the
Union industry significantly decreased, as explained above.

6.           Conclusion
on injury

(64)     In the absence of any other
claim or comments, the content of recitals (118) to (133) to the provisional
Regulation including the conclusion that Union industry has suffered material
injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation is hereby
confirmed.

F.         CAUSATION

1.           Effect
of other factors

1.1.        Imports
from other third countries

(65)     As a consequence of the
issue concerning the Union sales of the Union industry mentioned in recital (41)
above, the market share of the other third countries had to be revised as well.
For the other third countries, there were limited
imports throughout the whole period considered. The total market share of
imports from countries other than the two countries concerned has decreased during
the period considered by 0,8 percentage points, from 9,0 % to 8,2 %.

(66)     The
next largest sources of imports during the IP were Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey, which held market shares between 1,3 % and 1,5 %, and all of these countries
had stable or decreasing market shares during the period considered.

Import market share

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP

Brazil || 3,1 % || 3,6 % || 3,9 % || 1,5 %

Indonesia || 1,5 % || 2,4 % || 1,9 % || 1,5 %

Turkey || 1,3 % || 1,9 % || 1,8 % || 1,3 %

Other Countries || 3,0 % || 2,3 % || 3,1 % || 3,9 %

Total || 9,0 % || 10,2 % || 10,6 % || 8,2 %

Index || 100 || 114 || 118 || 92

Source: Eurostat

(67)     Due
to the limited volumes and the stable trend, it can be concluded that imports
from third countries other than the countries concerned have not contributed to
the injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.

1.2.        Development
of Union consumption

(68)     Interested
parties argued that the Union consumption developed negatively due to the
emeregence of substitute products manufactured with different materials other
than malleable cast iron, such as plastic, stainless steel, carbon steel and
copper, as well as new connection technologies. As a consequence, some Union
producers have broadened their product range, which now also includes some of
these substitute products.

(69)     In
this respect, it is noted that the substitution effects were addressed in
recital (146) to the provisional Regulation. These substitution effects had a
negative impact on the Union consumption, which as a consequence had an effect
on production and sales volume of the Union producers.

(70)     However,
as already indicated in the provisional Regulation, the injurious effect of the
shrinking Union consumption was aggravated by the steady increase of dumped
imports which gained 15,6 percentage points of market share in a shrinking
market. As indicated in recital (60) above, the demand
in the Union increased by around 6 000 tonnes between 2009 and the IP, but
the Union industry's sales further decreased by another 2 440 tonnes until the
end of the period considered in a recovering market.

(71)     On
the basis of the above, it is concluded that the negative development of Union
consumption does not break the causal link between the dumped imports and the
injury suffered by the Union industry.

1.3.        Decrease
in production capacity not due to dumped imports

(72)     Interested parties claimed that the decrease in the Union production
capacity mentioned in recital (113) to the provisional Regulation is due to the
shutdown of three Union producers between 2008 and 2009 due to the economic
crisis. This decrease can therefore allegedly not be attributed to imports from
the countries concerned.

(73)     In
this respect, it is pointed out that it was already mentioned in recital (113) to
the provisional Regulation that the main reason for the reduction of the
production capacity was the shutdown of three Union producers.

(74)     However,
the shutdown of the three Union producers cannot only be seen as an effect of
decreasing demand. During the period considered, the shrinking Union market
referred to in recital (42) above has been subject to continuously increasing
imports from the countries concerned, which gained 15,6 percentage points of
market share, as explained in recital (52) above. It is therefore clear that
not only the decreasing demand has contributed to the shutdown of three Union
producers and thereby to the decrease of the production capacity of the Union
industry. There is also a clear link between the decrease in the Union production capacity and the
increasing market share of dumped imports.

1.4.        Imports
of the product concerned by Union producers

(75)     Interested
parties claimed that the injury suffered by Union producers was self-inflicted,
as they allegedly imported significant quantities of the product concerned.
This claim was not supported by the findings of the investigation. Information
supplied by both the Union producers and the cooperating exporters showed that,
for each of the sampled groups of Union producers, these imports were minor
compared to their total production and sales of own-produced goods as already
indicated in recital (37) above. Given the insignificance of the volumes of
imports of the product concerned by the Union industry, it was concluded that those
imports did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.
Consequently, the claim was rejected.

1.5.        Use
of 2008 as a starting year

(76)     Interested parties claimed
that the deteriorating trend of the EU industry is largely based on the use of
2008 as a reference point for the period considered. Allegedly, 2008 was an
exceptionally good year for the Union industry. However, information included
in the complaint suggests that the situation of the EU industry in 2007 was
similar or better than the situation in 2008. It is therefore concluded that
the finding of injury does not depend on the use of 2008 as a starting year.

2.           Conclusion on causation

(77)     Account taken of the above
and in the absence of any other claim or comments, the content of recitals
(134) to (153) to the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(78)     In conclusion, it is
confirmed that the material injury of the Union industry, which is characterised
by decreasing profitability, production volumes,
capacity utilisation, sales volumes and market share
was caused by the dumped imports concerned. Indeed, the effect of decreasing
demand on the Union industry's negative developments in terms of production
capacity, production and sales was limited.

(79)     Given the above analysis,
which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all the known
factors on the situation of the Union Industry from the injurious effects of
the dumped imports, it is hereby confirmed that these other factors as such do
not reverse the fact that the assessed injury must be attributed to the dumped
imports.

G.        UNION
INTEREST

(80)     In the absence of any comments,
recitals (154) to (164) to the provisional Regulation, including the conclusion
that no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of measures on the
dumped imports from the countries concerned are hereby confirmed.

H.        DEFINITIVE MEASURES

1.           Injury elimination level

(81)     The injury elimination
levels were adjusted to take into account the level of trade adjustment made in
the calculation of undercutting as set out in recitals (54) and (55) above. In
the absence of any other specific comments, recitals (165) to (170) to the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

2.           Definitive measures

(82)     In view of the conclusions
reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
accordance with Article 9 of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product
concerned originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand at the
level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with
the lesser duty rule, which is in all, but one, cases the dumping margin.

(83)     Given
the high level of cooperation of the Chinese and Thai exporting producers, the ‘all
other companies’ duty for both countries was set at the level of the highest
duty to be imposed on the companies, respectively, sampled or cooperating in
the investigation from the respective country. The ‘all other companies’ duty
will be applied to those companies that had not cooperated in the investigation
and to companies that have not had exports of the product concerned to the
Union during the IP.

(84)     For
the cooperating non-sampled Chinese companies listed in the Annex to this Regulation, the
definitive duty rate is set at the weighted average of the rates of the sampled
companies.

(85)     The
rates of the definitive anti-dumping duties are as follows:

People's Republic of China

Company || Dumping margin || Injury margin || Duty Rate

Hebei Jianzhi Casting Group Ltd. || 57,8 % || 96,1 % || 57,8 %

Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. || 40,8 % || 84,4 % || 40,8 %

Qingdao Madison Industrial Co., Ltd. || 24,6 % || 89,4 % || 24,6 %

Other cooperating companies || 41,1 % || 86,3 % || 41,1 %

All other companies || || || 57,8 %

Thailand

Company || Dumping margin || Injury margin || Duty Rate

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co., Ltd || 15,5 % || 43,1 % || 15,5 %

Siam Fittings Co., Ltd || 50,7 % || 14,9 % || 14,9 %

All other companies || || || 15,5 %

(86)     The individual company
anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the
situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies.
These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other
companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of product concerned
originating in the PRC and Thailand and produced by the companies and thus by
the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported product concerned produced by
any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to
the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(87)     Any claim requesting the
application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a
change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production
or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission[6] forthwith with all relevant
information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked
to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that
name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If
appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the
list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

(88)     With regard to the PRC, in
order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporters and the cooperating
companies not included in the sample, provision should be made for the weighted
average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any new exporters
which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the
basic Regulation as that Article does not apply where sampling has been used.

(89)     All parties were informed
of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended
to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the
People's Republic of China and Thailand, and the definitive collection of the
amounts secured by way of the provisional duty ('final disclosure'). They were
also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent
to this disclosure.

(90)     Given that following the
final disclosure no new arguments that would influence the outcome of the
assessment of the case were brought forward, no modification of the findings as
detailed above is warranted.

I.          UNDERTAKING

(91)     One cooperating Thai
exporting producer offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1)
of the basic Regulation. However, the product concerned exists in a multitude
of product types (the exporting producer reported over 900 product types sold
to the EU), for which prices vary significantly (by up to 200 % within the most
sold types but some less sold product types may be even 10 times as expensive
as others), thus posing a very high risk of cross-compensation. In addition,
the product types may evolve in design and finishing. It was therefore
considered that the product is not suitable for a price undertaking. Also, it
has been the Commissions consistent practice during the last years not to
accept undertakings in cases where the product exists in such a multitude of
types. Consequently, the undertaking offer was rejected.

J.         DEFINITIVE
COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

(92)     In view of the magnitude of
the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of a provisional
anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively
collected. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties,
only the amounts secured at the level of provisional duties should be
definitively collected, while the amounts secured in excess of the definitive
rate of anti-dumping duties should be released.

(93)     As bodies
of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid
are now excluded from the product scope (see recitals (8) and (11) above), the
amounts provisionally secured on imports of bodies of
compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid
should be released.

K.        TERMINATION
OF THE PROCEEDING WITH REGARD TO INDONESIA

(94)     As explained in recital (43)
above, the volumes of the dumped imports from Indonesia can be considered as
not constituting a cause of material injury to the Union industry.
Consequently, it is considered that protective measures are not necessary and
that the proceeding with regard to Indonesia should be terminated.

(95)     All parties were informed
of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended
to recommend the termination and no objections were raised,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.           A
definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of threaded tube or
pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, excluding bodies of compression
fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable
iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid, currently falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307 19
10 10) and originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand.

2.           The
rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net
free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in
paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as
follows:

Country || Company || Duty Rate || TARIC additional code

People's Republic of China || Hebei Jianzhi Casting Group Ltd. - Yutian County || 57,8 % || B335

|| Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. - Jinan || 40,8 % || B336

|| Qingdao Madison Industrial Co., Ltd. -Qingdao || 24,6 % || B337

|| Hebei XinJia Casting Co., Ltd. - XuShui County || 41,1 % || B338

|| Shijiazhuang Donghuan Malleable Iron Castings Co., Ltd. – Xizhaotong Town || 41,1 % || B339

|| Linyi Oriental Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd. - Linyi City || 41,1 % || B340

|| China Shanxi Taigu County Jingu Cast Co., Ltd. - Taigu County || 41,1 % || B341

|| Yutian Yongli Casting Factory Co., Ltd. – Yutian County || 41,1 % || B342

|| Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. - LangFang, Hebei || 41,1 % || B343

|| Tangshan Daocheng Casting Co., Ltd. -Hongqiao Town, Yutian County || 41,1 % || B344

|| Tangshan Fangyuan Malleable Steel Co., Ltd. – Tangshan || 41,1 % || B345

|| Taigu Tongde Casting Co., Ltd. – Nanyang Village, Taigu || 41,1 % || B346

|| All other companies || 57,8 % || B999

Thailand || BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co., Ltd - Samutsakorn || 15,5 % || B347

|| Siam Fittings Co., Ltd - Samutsakorn || 14,9 % || B348

|| All other companies || 15,5 % || B999

3.           Unless
otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall
apply.

Article 2

1.           Amounts secured by way of
provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No
1071/2012 on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast
fittings, of malleable cast iron, excluding bodies of compression fittings
using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron
threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid,
currently falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307 19 10 10) and
originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand, shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of
the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.

2.           The amounts secured by way
of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No
1071/2012 on imports of bodies of compression fittings
using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron
threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid and originating in the
People's Republic of China and Thailand, shall be released.

Article 3

Where any new exporting producer in the
People’s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:

–
it did not export to the Union the product
described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 January 2011 – 31
December 2011),

–
it is not related to any of the exporters or
producers in the People’s Republic of China which are subject to the measures
imposed by this Regulation,

–
it has actually exported to the Union the product
concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it
has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant
quantity to the Union,

Article 1(2) may be amended by adding the
new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample
and thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 41,1 %.

Article 4

The anti-dumping proceeding concerning
imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron,
currently falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10 and originating in Indonesia is
hereby terminated.

Article 5

This Regulation shall enter into force on
the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding
in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For
the Council

The
President

[1]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

[2]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

[3]               OJ L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10.

[4]               OJ C 44, 16.2.2012, p. 33.

[5]               Compression fittings use ISO DIN 13 metric threads,
while standard threaded fittings usually use ISO 7/1 and ISO 228/1 threads.

[6]               European
Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Office N105, 1049 Brussels, BELGIUM.